list_tasks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that archived tasks are excluded by default, that archiving is not deletion, and that data persists. It omits return format, ordering, and any pagination behavior, but the key hidden default is surfaced.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the filtering scope, then the common case, then the archived caveat. Every sentence adds information with no padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-param, no-required read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers scope, the primary filter, and the archived default/restore path. It does not describe the shape or ordering of returned tasks, which is the main remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents all three parameters including the default of include_archived. The description largely restates the default and adds a usage example for column_id, which is helpful but not materially beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (list/filter tasks) and its scope (by column or tag). It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_task or list_stalled, so an agent still has to infer which listing tool applies, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete when-to-use cue ('when you want to see what's in progress, filter with column_id') and explains the default archived exclusion with a remedy (include_archived=true). It stops short of naming sibling alternatives such as list_stalled or board_snapshot, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.